Is Everything in the Temple Ceremony "Doctrine?"

[Mormons Talk]

Question about the Temple. In your responses, please uphold the sacred nature of the temple, and guidelines from the Church and this forum for discussing temple related matters. My questions are:

(1) Is everything in the Temple ceremony "doctrine," or does doctrine "reside" in the temple ceremony much like it does in the scriptures (see Mormon Newsroom paragraph below)?

(2) In reference to the paragraph below, does ALL doctrine reside somewhere in (i) the 4 standard works; (ii) official declarations and proclamations; and (iii) the Articles of Faith?  If not, can we create a list of things that DO contain ALL doctrine (recognizing that this list might also contain many non-doctrinal elements)?

My reference point is the article "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" found at http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine.  It states, in part, "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency(the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted."

Interestingly, I do not find any mention of the temple in this article on Mormon Doctrine - perhaps it was omitted inadvertently. 

[thesometimesaint]

No; the Temple ceremony itself is not  doctrine. It does have doctrinal statements in it however.

[JLHPROF]

Depends on your definition of doctrine.  If you define "doctrine" as an official canonical belief of the Church then it becomes hazy.
But considering the covenants made I would say that the teachings of the temple are definitely "binding" for those members.

In my opinion:
Everything in the temple ceremony is doctrine EXCEPT the theatrical presentation choices.
That means the theological teachings, the "power" part of the endowment (signs, tokens etc), the covenants, and so on.

We know from scripture and modern revelation that the endowment has been given in every dispensation of the world.
Those things that have existed in every dispensation I would consider doctrine.  Those things peculiar to ours may not be - for example the endowment used to feature the singing of a 1700s protestant hymn and a choir.  One historical record records that an apostle "wriggled, squealed, and crept away on his hands and knees" as part of the theatre.  The eating of raisins, wearing of crowns, and other theatrical choices in history also are not "doctrinal".

So, that's how I view it.  Other's mileage will definitely differ.

 

[Mormons Talk]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

No; the Temple ceremony itself is not  doctrine. It does have doctrinal statements in it however.

Thanks for your response.  Are you aware of any official-ish sources that discuss this position, or is it more based on your opinion?

[longview]

Whatever parts have covenants, they are heavy duty doctrines.

Whatever parts have warnings, they help overcome the Adversary.

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, Mormons Talk said:

Thanks for your response.  Are you aware of any official-ish sources that discuss this position, or is it more based on your opinion?

Without going into specifics of the ceremony most of what is presented in the ceremony can be found in our scriptures. You just have to know where to look for them, and how to look at them. What the scriptures can't and don't present is Gods' responses to my questions and understandings of the meanings behind the ceremony. Also the ceremony is not written in stone. It can and has been changed over the years as God wishes. So yes it is my opinion, but it is a well informed, by over 46 years of Temple attendance, opinion.

[blueglass]

I currently work as a veil worker, and was only set apart a few months ago.  As I was set apart, the first counselor in our temple presidency explained the assignment/calling, and what I would be doing.  Then he started teaching about the doctrine of how I would be representing God the father or elohim to help people pass through the veil as they presented the signs and tokens of the priesthood.  A red flag went up in my head, that he was wrong and that he didn't have that one quite right.  Something was telling me I should correct him, or engage him more directly on this doctrinal misunderstanding between us, as I was certain to be representing the Savior, but I just let him keep going on the training, before he set me apart where he re-iterated it again during my set apart that I would be representing elohim.  The signs and tokens and scriptures point to Jehovah  "The keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there", and the tokens are clearly pointing to the experience of 3nephi11:15 where the scriptures are clear that each went up one by one and felt the prints of the nails in his hands and feet.  My concern on many doctrines, is that many teaching us may not know themselves, or have had theological training, and so they will completely mess up on doctrines of atonement, sacrifice, pelagianism, faith/works vs synergistic grace, divine high /low christology vs. arian heresy, theodicies of many kinds, and doctrines of divine ascension vs. Isaiah 43:10, and women's power and authority concerns.  I still recall a discussion with a newly set apart temple sealer on the meaning and purpose of the keys of Elias from D&Cov110, and we were in a real tangle there on the meaning of the dispensation of abraham, celestial marriage, new and everlasting covenant vs. Elijah, and why this restoration of keys by an ?? were absolutely necessary, yet only recorded by Warren Cowdery, and then kept secret for many years.  Denver Snuffer seems to capitalize on this problem to his own peril. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Mormons Talk said:

.....................................................

(1) Is everything in the Temple ceremony "doctrine," or does doctrine "reside" in the temple ceremony much like it does in the scriptures (see Mormon Newsroom paragraph below)?

(2)......................... does ALL doctrine reside somewhere in (i) the 4 standard works; (ii) official declarations and proclamations; and (iii) the Articles of Faith?  If not, can we create a list of things that DO contain ALL doctrine (recognizing that this list might also contain many non-doctrinal elements)?

My reference point is the article "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" found at http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine.  It states, in part, "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency(the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted."

Interestingly, I do not find any mention of the temple in this article on Mormon Doctrine - perhaps it was omitted inadvertently. 

The article you cite and quote from was clearly not meant to be taken as a statement of Canon Law.  Indeed, it explicitly declares that it is merely an "approach" to Mormon doctrine.  Note for example the time-bound notion (which is false) that the First Presidency consists of a prophet and two counselors.  Those of us who have been around for awhile know that there can and have been more than two counselors.  The article was meant to be helpful and general, not definitive.

The LDS temple rites are likewise recent and time-bound.  They may contain doctrine in the same way that the Hymnbook contains doctrine, but both really constitute liturgy.  Moreover, much of LDS temple ritual is symbolic and figurative in nature.  In some cases, the signs and symbols can (and have been) altered to suit the times.  As with polygyny, just because something can or has been done does not mean that it must be done today.

What you are really asking is a theological question.  Yet, since LDS general authorities are not trained theologians, we are unlikely to see any of them compose a definitive, systematic theology.  That was tried by an LDS general authority who was a lawyer, and he failed.  In fact, the LDS faith seems to militate against any sort of systematic theology, tending to prefer inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  We prefer to leave advanced theological thinking to the other denominations of Christianity -- because, well, look where it got them.